Christian Cole pleaded guilty to drug trafficking offenses involving methamphetamine and fentanyl after a high-speed chase and arrest in Wyoming. Law enforcement discovered drugs and a BB gun during the search. The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months but applied a downward variance, sentencing Cole to 240 months. Cole appealed, challenging the application of a two-level enhancement for distributing drugs in a detention facility, the procedural reasonableness of the sentence regarding sentencing disparities, and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence length.
The Tenth Circuit addressed three main issues. First, regarding the § 2D1.1(b)(4) enhancement, the court applied plain error review because Cole failed to object in the district court. The court found Cole could not satisfy the second prong of plain error review because there is no well-settled law in the Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court defining the 'object of the offense' under this enhancement, and sister circuits are split on the issue. Therefore, any error was not 'plain' or 'clear.' Second, regarding procedural reasonableness, the court rejected Cole's argument that the district court failed to consider sentencing disparities. The court clarified that § 3553(a)(6) concerns nationwide disparities, not those within the same judicial district. The district court had adequately considered the broader national data. Third, regarding substantive reasonableness, the court found Cole was not similarly situated to the other defendants he cited for comparison because Cole pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and had a higher criminal history category. Additionally, a below-Guidelines sentence carries a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness, which Cole failed to overcome.
Cole's conviction and sentence of 240 months remain in full force. The decision reinforces that defendants challenging sentencing enhancements without a prior objection face a high bar under plain error review when circuit law is unsettled. It also clarifies that intra-district sentencing comparisons are not a valid basis for claiming procedural unreasonableness under § 3553(a)(6).
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download